I think my view comes down to this: we have a 17th-Century political system running a 21st-Century country. The debates we have over Lords Reform or voting system are just playing with the edges of the system. It is not quite like the engine of Kovalaienen’s Caterham at FP1 this morning, but it is making sick noises.

Sadly it is not fit for purpose, and we are just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

What we need is a look at the entire system: where it works and where it does not. Look at the best practice from around the world and try to mould the best bits onto a system that works for us. Look at what fails in other systems as well, and learn the lessons.

There are so many large questions. Do we need an upper and a lower house? If so what are their rules and interfaces? How does local democracy fit in, and will it be expanded or reduced? Do constituents vote for a candidate or some form of party? Do we try and bring in a form of direct representation, with the public allowed to vote on specific measures? What is the role of the civil service; will it change or remain the same? How do we make parliament and politics better represent the public, and do we even want to? Can the public propose laws? Can we trust the public to directly vote on laws? What role do the media play?

I love pomp and ceremony, and there is no reason not to keep much of that as whether someone wears a wig or not effects democracy not one jot.  

The way to do this would be to decide on some basic rules that we want on our system. These could be things like:
*) No taxes without representation;
*) No benefits (of any kind) without voting;
*) One parliament to propose and debate laws;
*) A second parliament of experts to debate and amend;
*) Some laws to be passed only by direct representation (i.e. referenda).
*) Local government to be thoroughly overhauled and made to work
*) Budgets set by percentages of GDP rather than set figures; as GDP (or other) figure rises, so does spending in proportion.

Everyone will have their own list; the above is just indicative.

As someone mentioned above, this will not happen as there is too much power in the current system. Which is a shame, as the system, if not the MPs, is not working for the public.

As a conservative (with a small ‘c’), I generally believe that it is best to evolve rather than make wholesale changes. However, in this case I think we need large, wide-ranging alterations to the system.

A part time lesbian.

If only they had bothered to turn up to the Committee meeting. It was passed by one vote.

http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/ 

Really, you people were begging for him to return, something to do with wise betting tips and unique insight? Are you all joking? What you get is a neverending crock of bitchy anti government bile that isn’t even funny.

Where is the wisdom? That unique insight? That hidden genius?

Meanwhile, on topic. Con/UKIP unholy alliance works for me. Bring it on!

Andrew Neil‏@afneil

MP Chris Huhne’s partner Carina Trimingham loses her High Court privacy and harassment action against the Mail. Faces massive costs +£200K.

They are poles apart – it’s like comparing ‘flu with rabies.

‘Not good at spelling’/lazy/a bit thick sums up 90% of the *one-third* of pupils who claim extra time for ‘dyslexia’.

Not at all like UKIP’s ‘overt tactics to enforce support through the overt and sanctioned use of threats and bribes’ on the Tory party’s policy then?

Sauce for the goose. Motes and beams. Take your pick… ;^)

I know what happened with Nathalie when we both taught at the same school and so were both affected, in different ways, by global decisions taken on high (such as going fully co-ed, for example or offering one of us a promotion or extra duties, which impacted on the other’s life).

When we both agreed as to what this would mean for us both, all was well, but when one saw one side of the situation only (ie benefit for them, but disregarded the bad news for the other) then matrimonial conflicts and arguments were likely to follow.

It’s what destroyed us as a couple: ‘external forces’, both in the form of Cranleigh School and Nathalie’s relationship with Anne (which was far, far deeper (Nathalie was, and is, emotionally totally dependent on Anne in so many, many ways: she’s her puppet as well as her slave) as well as more intimate than I had realised or understood)

Dan Hannan or Bev_C from PB, actually not to personalise it, it’s just that all women obsessed with shoes are *fill in the pejorative term*.  Your criticism of UKIP is no more legitimate than the Labour critique of Cameron for being a toff.  What next, LibDems wear sandals and Labour supporters all have cloth caps and whippets?

Moving on…  to answer the specific points.

then fail to look at a cold, hard strategy for achieving their objectives.

That cold, hard strategy may not be to your liking, but it’s as I’ve already described it, to hold a gun to the tory party’s head.  If they don’t offer x, then they could be losing the next GE.

The idea of infiltrating the tory party is an odd one, given everytime a proper tory eurosceptic speaks out they are accused of giving ammunition to their opponents and splitting the party.

As for the referendum, I make no claims one way or the other.  If the result is that the public want further integration, then so be it, if the public want out, then their views should be implemented.  What’s so bad about that?

So much for the Double Dip being a mere statistical anomaly that would be revised away as Tories complacently asserted.

At this rate Labour will be half hoping they don’t win in 2015, given the scale of the mess these austerity obsessed Tory halfwits are creating.

I certainly miss the team work aspect of a relationship.

No this is MADNESS :

http://www.portobellorecollection.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Madness7.jpg

Come off it, that is palpable nonsense.

Firstly, you seem unaware that Cameron heads a coalition with a very pro-EU party.  Surely even a UKIPper should be able to see that that limits his freedom of action. 

Secondly you said upthread that “he gave up on the Lisbon referendum”, completely ignoring the fact that the treaty had been ratified – a rather material fact, as even a UKIPper should be able to see.  Ignoring this reality simply makes you sound a bit mad.

Thirdly, this the passing into law of this Act seems to have totally passed you by:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/contents

Surely even a UKIPper should be able to see that this makes a real practical difference in terms of resisting EU integration.

Fourthly, he did pull the Conservatives out of the EPP group, because he didn’t want to be part of a group committed to ever-closer union.  Surely even a UKIPper can recognise that this signals that he is resisting EU integration.

Fifthly, he vetoed a treaty change which would have led to an extensions of EU powers. Surely even a UKIPper should be able to see that this makes a real practical difference in terms of resisting EU integration.

Campaigning for leaving the EU and wanting Cameron to do more are fair enough. But why be both dishonest and viciously personal about the simple and introvertible facts of what Cameron has actually done?

Using a link to someone who has a visceral, blind hatred of Farage (even though he does have some fair points to make about the way UKIP is run) is hardly a great way to support any argument. 

Enormous amounts of newsprint expended, yet little actual understanding of it/explanation of how it works/what it does.

The media is shockingly bad at doing the basics on some very important issues. It’s frequently fact free opinion and prejudice dressed up as expert analysis.

Problems at work is one thing, policy setting and political strategy is a bit of another, particularly when you’re engaged in the delicate job of balancing a coalition to keep your political career alive. ‘The power behind the throne’ is wild exaggeration to say the least.

That is utter cobblers.

I agree that many middle class parents find any excuse to explain away the fact that in reality little Johnny or Jane is thick.

But Dyslexia is a known problem and when tackled by people who know what they are doing often (granted not always) leads to very big improvements in the pupil.

(1) There is never an overall majority for any one party
(2) Party discipline is looser
(3) Most legislation is now at EU level, though not the most important legislation
(4) No legislation can pass unless the EP agrees and
(5) It is easier for backbench MEPs to force a debate than in Westminster.

They have a huge problem in getting any of this across, since with half a million voters each they can’t meet many of their voters directly, and the media can’t be arsed to report them.

“Mitt Romney is Al Gore without the personality”.

Ouch !!

Shakespeare’s Caesar warns of surrounding yourself with thin, ambitious men, and that’s even more true of wives.

To return home to a wife who is proud of you is absolute bliss: to return to one who despises you, is hell on Earth.

And I have the T-shirt (and scars) to prove it!

The trouble is that fiancées are aware of their beloved’s shortcomings well before they marry, but then seek to change their husband afterwards: often that fails and they then blame the husband, rather than themselves, for seeking to change their man in the first place.

You marry someone, you marry them, warts and all, not seek to inflict plastic surgery on them straight after the honeymoon!

The oil/gas contraction is very real, but the sector has a much bigger share of GDP than it does employment. Construction is a biggish employer, but the construction output figures have virtually no relationship with construction employment data since the output methodology was changed in Q1 2010.

That is simply not the case that grammar schools have better facilities-in fact quite the opposite. Most have had less funds-especially capital funds- than non-grammars for many years. 

ALL the big school building programs around me (East Kent) have been focused on the non-grammar schools. 

I do think your point about talented maths students not getting to a grammar school because of their language failings is an important point and is one of a number of failures in the selection process for the grammar school system.

(The change in the law was mainly for the benefit of Labour and co-ooperative joint candidates, of which there are 20 odd MPs. As I understand it previously there was a bit of an anomaly where if you were endorsed by one party you could have an emblem, but if you were endorsed by two you couldn’t have any).

http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/ukip-nigel-kirsten-annabelle-fuller.html

The tale of the Y shaped coffin lady.